Monopoly
Media Manipulation

May 2001

In a capitalist “democracy” like the
United States, the corporate news media faithfully reflect the dominant
class ideology both in their reportage and commentary. At the same time,
these media leave the impression that they are free and independent,
capable of balanced coverage and objective commentary. How they achieve
these seemingly contradictory but legitimating goals is a matter worthy
of study. Notables in the media industry claim that occasional inaccuracies
do occur in news coverage because of innocent error and everyday production
problems such as deadline pressures, budgetary restraints, and the difficulty
of reducing a complex story into a concise report. Furthermore, no communication
system can hope to report everything, hence selectivity is needed.

To be sure, such pressures and problems
do exist and honest mistakes are made, but do they really explain the
media’s overall performance? True the press must be selective, but what
principle of selectivity is involved? I would argue that media bias
usually does not occur in random fashion; rather it moves in more or
less consistent directions, favoring management over labor, corporations
over corporate critics, affluent whites over low income minorities,
officialdom over protestors, the two-party monopoly over leftist third
parties, privatization and free market “reforms” over public sector
development, U.S. dominance of the Third World over revolutionary or
populist social change, and conservative commentators and columnists
over progressive or radical ones.

Suppression by Omission

Some critics complain that the press
is sensationalistic and invasive. In fact, it is more often muted and
evasive. More insidious than the sensationalistic hype is the artful
avoidance. Truly sensational stories (as opposed to sensationalistic)
are downplayed or avoided outright. Sometimes the suppression includes
not just vital details but the entire story itself, even ones of major
import. Reports that might reflect poorly upon the national security
state are least likely to see the light of day. Thus we hear about political
repression perpetrated by officially designated “rogue” governments,
but information about the brutal murder and torture practiced by U.S.-sponsored
surrogate forces in the Third World, and other crimes committed by the
U.S. national security state are denied public airing, being suppressed
with a consistency that would be called “totalitarian” were it to occur
in some other countries.

The media downplay stories of momentous
magnitude. In 1965 the Indonesian military — advised, equipped, trained,
and financed by the U.S. military and the CIA — overthrew President
Achmed Sukarno and eradicated the Indonesian Communist Party and its
allies, killing half a million people (some estimates are as high as
a million) in what was the greatest act of political mass murder since
the Nazi Holocaust. The generals also destroyed hundreds of clinics,
libraries, schools, and community centers that had been established
by the Communists. Here was a sensational story if ever there was one,
but it took three months before it received passing mention in Time
magazine and yet another month before it was reported in the New York
Times (April 5, 1966), accompanied by an editorial that actually praised
the Indonesian military for “rightly playing its part with utmost caution.”

Over the course of forty years, the
CIA involved itself with drug traffickers in Italy, France, Corsica,
Indochina, Afghanistan, and Central and South America. Much of this
activity was the object of extended congressional investigation — by
Senator Church's committee and Congressman Pike’s committee in the 1970s,
and Senator Kerry's committee in the late 1980s. But the corporate capitalist
media seem not to have heard about it.

Attack and Destroy the Target

When omission proves to be an insufficient
mode of censorship and a story somehow begins to reach larger publics,
the press moves from artful avoidance to frontal assault in order to
discredit the story. In August 1996, the San Jose Mercury News, drawing
from a year-long investigation, ran an in-depth series about the CIA-contra
crack shipments that were flooding East Los Angeles. Holding true to
form, the major media mostly ignored the issue. But the Mercury News
series was picked up by some local and regional newspapers, and was
flashed across the world on the Internet copiously supplemented pertinent
documents and depositions supporting the charges against the CIA. African
American urban communities, afflicted by the crack epidemic, were up
in arms and wanted to know more. The story became difficult to ignore.
So, the major media began an all-out assault. A barrage of hit pieces
in the Washington Post and New York Times and on network television
and PBS assured us that there was no evidence of CIA involvement, that
the Mercury News series was “bad journalism,” and that its investigative
reporter Gary Webb was irresponsibly playing on the public's gullibility
and conspiracy mania. By a process of relentless attack and shameless
mendacity, the major media exonerated the CIA from any involvement in
drug trafficking.

Labeling

Like all propagandists, mainstream media
people seek to prefigure our perception of a subject with a positive
or negative label. Some positive ones are: “stability,” “the president’s
firm leadership,” “a strong defense,” and “a healthy economy.” Indeed,
not many Americans would want instability, wobbly presidential leadership,
a weak defense, and a sick economy. The label defines the subject without
having to deal with actual particulars that might lead us to a different
conclusion.

Some common negative labels are: “leftist
guerrillas,” “Islamic terrorists,” “conspiracy theories,” “inner-city
gangs,” and “civil disturbances.” These, too, are seldom treated within
a larger context of social relations and issues. The press itself is
facilely and falsely labeled “the liberal media” by the hundreds of
conservative columnists, commentators, and talk-shows hosts who crowd
the communication universe while claiming to be shut out from it. Some
labels we will never be exposed to are “class power,” “class struggle,”
and “U.S. imperialism.”

A new favorite among deceptive labels
is “reforms,” whose meaning is inverted, being applied to any policy
dedicated to undoing the reforms that have been achieved after decades
of popular struggle. So the destruction of family assistance programs
is labeled “welfare reform.” “Reforms” in Eastern Europe, and most recently
in Yugoslavia, have meant the heartless impoverishment of former Communist
countries, the dismantling of what remained of the public economy, its
deindustrialization and expropriation at fire sale prices by a corporate
investor class, complete with massive layoffs, drastic cutbacks in public
assistance and human services, and a dramatic increase in unemployment
and human suffering. “IMF reforms” is a euphemism for the same kind
of bruising cutbacks throughout the Third World. As Edward Herman once
noted, “reforms” are not the solution, they are the problem.

In April 2001, the newly elected prime
minister of Japan, Junichiro Koisumi, was widely identified in the U.S.
media as a “reformer.” His free-market “reforms” include the privatization
of Japan’s postal saving system. Millions of Japanese have their life
savings in the postal system and the “reformer” Koisumi wants private
investors to be able to get their hands on these funds.

“Free market” has long been a pet label,
evoking images of economic plenitude and democracy. In reality, free-market
policies undermine the markets of local producers, provide state subsidies
to multinational corporations, destroy public sector services, and create
greater gaps between the wealthy few and the underprivileged many.

Another favorite media label is “hardline.”
Anyone who resists free-market “reforms,” be it in Belarus, Italy, Peru,
or Yugoslavia, is labeled a “hardliner.” An article in the New York
Times (10/21/97) used “hardline” and “hardliner” eleven times to describe
Bosnian Serb leaders who opposed attempts by NATO forces to close down
the “hardline Bosnian Serb broadcast network.” The radio station in
question was the only one in all of Bosnia that offered a perspective
critical of Western intervention in Yugoslavia. The forceful closing
of this one remaining dissenting media voice was described by the Times
as “a step toward bringing about responsible news coverage in Bosnia.”
The story did note “the apparent irony” of using foreign soldiers for
“silencing broadcasts in order to encourage free speech.” The NATO troops
who carried out this repressive task were identified with the positive
label of “peacekeepers.”

It is no accident that labels like "hardline"
are never subjected to precise definition. The efficacy of a label is
that it not have a specific content which can be held up to a test of
evidence. Better that it be self-referential, propagating an undefined
but evocative image.

Preemptive Assumption

Frequently the media accept as given
the very policy position that needs to be critically examined. Whenever
the White House proposes an increase in military spending, press discussion
is limited to how much more spending is needed, how much updating of
weaponry; are we doing enough or need we do still more? No media exposure
is given to those who hotly contest the already gargantuan arms budget
in its totality. It is assumed that U.S. forces must be deployed around
the world, and that hundreds of billions must be spent each year on
this global military system.

Likewise with media discussion of Social
Security “reform,” a euphemism for the privatization and eventual abolition
of a program that is working well. The media preemptively assume the
very dubious position that needs to be debated: that the program, is
in danger of insolvency (in thirty years) and therefore in need of drastic
overhauling today. Social Security operates as a three-pronged human
service: in addition to retirement pensions, it provides survivors’
insurance (up until the age of 18) to children in families that have
lost their breadwinner, and it offers disability assistance to persons
of pre-retirement age who have sustained serious injury or illness.
But from existing press coverage you would not know this — and most
Americans do not.

Face-Value Transmission

Many labels are fabricated not by news
media but by officialdom. U.S. governmental and corporate leaders talk
about “our global leadership,” “national security,” “free markets,”
and “globalization” when what they mean is “All Power to the Transnationals.”
The media uncritically and dutifully accept these official views, transmitting
them to wider publics without any noticeable critical comment regarding
the actual content of the policy. Face-value transmission has characterized
the press’s performance in almost every area of domestic and foreign
policy.

When challenged on this, reporters respond
that they cannot inject their own personal views into their reports.
Actually, no one is asking them to. My criticism is that they already
do, and seldom realize it. Their conventional ideological perceptions
usually coincide with those of their bosses and with officialdom in
general, making them face-value purveyors of the prevailing orthodoxy.
This uniformity of bias is perceived as “objectivity.”

The alternative to challenging face-value
transmission is not to editorialize about the news but to question the
assertions made by officialdom, to consider critical data that might
give credence to an alternative view. Such an effort is not an editorial
or ideological pursuit but an empirical and investigative one, albeit
one that is not usually tolerated in the capitalist press beyond certain
safely limited parameters.

Slighting of Content

One has to marvel at how the corporate
news media can give so much emphasis to surface happenings, to style
and process, and so little to the substantive issues at stake. A glaring
example is the way elections are covered. The political campaign is
reduced to a horse race: Who will run? Who will get the nomination?
Who will win the election? News commentators sound like theater critics
as they hold forth on how this or that candidate projected a positive
image, came across effectively, and had a good rapport with the audience.
The actual issues are accorded scant attention, and the democratic dialogue
that is supposed to accompany a contest for public office rarely is
heard through the surface din.

Accounts of major strikes — on those
rare occasions the press attends to labor struggles — offer a similar
slighting of content while focusing heavily on process. We are told
how many days the strike has lasted, the inconvenience and cost to the
public and the economy, and how negotiations threaten to break down.
Missing is any reference to the substance of the conflict, the grievances
that drive workers reluctantly to the extreme expediency of a strike,
such as, cutbacks in wages and benefits, loss of seniority, safety issues,
or the unwillingness of management to negotiate a contract.

Media pundits often talk about the “larger
picture.” In fact, their ability or willingness to link immediate events
and issues to larger social relations is almost nonexistent, nor would
a broader analysis be tolerated by their bosses. Instead, they regularly
give us the smaller picture, this being a way of slighting content and
remaining within politically safe boundaries. Thus the many demonstrations
against international free-trade agreements beginning with NAFTA and
GATT are reported, if at all, as contests between protestors and police
with little reference to the issues of democratic sovereignty and unaccountable
corporate power that impel the protestors.

Consider the press treatment of the
suppression of the vote in Florida during the 2000 presidential campaign.
After a count of ballots by the Miami Herald and USA Today, that took
a limited view of what was open to challenge, major media across the
country announced that Bush in fact won in Florida. Other investigations
indicate that such was not the case at all, but these remain largely
unpublicized. Furthermore, press treatment has focused almost exclusively
on problems relating to questionable counts, with much discussion of
ballot “dimples” and “chads.” But in the aftermath, hardly a word was
uttered about the ballots that were never collected, and the thousands
of people who were disfranchised by the repressive ploys of Florida
officials and state troopers. Again, what we got was the smaller (safer)
picture, one that does not challenge the legitimacy of the electoral
process and the authorities who preside over it.

False Balancing

In accordance with the canons of good
journalism, the press is supposed to tap competing sources to get both
sides of an issue. In fact, both sides are seldom accorded equal prominence.
One study found that on NPR, supposedly the most liberal of the mainstream
media, right-wing spokespeople are often interviewed alone, while liberals
— on the less frequent occasions they appear — are almost always offset
by conservatives. Furthermore, both sides of a story are not usually
all sides. The whole left-progressive and radical portion of the opinion
spectrum is amputated from the visible body politic.

False balancing was evident in a BBC
World Service report (December 11, 1997) that spoke of “a history of
violence between Indonesian forces and Timorese guerrillas” — with
not a hint that the guerrillas were struggling for their lives against
an Indonesian invasion force that had slaughtered some 200,000 Timorese.
Instead, the genocidal invasion of East Timor was made to sound like
a grudge fight, with “killings on both sides.” By imposing a neutralizing
gloss, the BBC announcer was introducing a serious distortion.

The U.S.-supported wars in Guatemala
and El Salvador during the 1980s were often treated with that same kind
of false balancing. Both those who burned villages and those who were
having their villages burned were depicted as equally involved in a
contentious bloodletting. While giving the appearance of being objective
and neutral, one actually neutralizes the subject matter and thereby
drastically warps it.

Follow-up Avoidance

When confronted with an unexpectedly
dissident response, media hosts quickly change the subject, or break
for a commercial, or inject an identifying announcement: “We are talking
with [whomever].” The purpose is to avoid going any further into a politically
forbidden topic no matter how much the unexpected response might seem
to need a follow-up query. An anchorperson for the BBC World Service
(December 26, 1997) enthused: “Christmas in Cuba: For the first time
in almost forty years Cubans were able to celebrate Christmas and go
to church!” She then linked up with the BBC correspondent in Havana,
who observed, “A crowd of two thousand have gathered in the cathedral
for midnight mass. The whole thing is rather low key, very much like
last year.” Very much like last year? Here was something that craved
clarification. Instead, the anchorperson quickly switched to another
question: "Can we expect a growth of freedom with the pope’s visit?“

On a PBS talk show (January 22, 1998),
host Charlie Rose asked a guest, whose name I did not get, whether Castro
was bitter about “the historic failure of communism”. No, the guest
replied, Castro is proud of what he believes communism has done for
Cuba: advances in health care and education, full employment, and the
elimination of the worst aspects of poverty. Rose fixed him with a ferocious
glare, then turned to another guest to ask: "What impact will the pope's
visit have in Cuba?“ Rose ignored the errant guest for the rest of the
program.

Framing

The most effective propaganda relies
on framing rather than on falsehood. By bending the truth rather than
breaking it, using emphasis and other auxiliary embellishments, communicators
can create a desired impression without resorting to explicit advocacy
and without departing too far from the appearance of objectivity. Framing
is achieved in the way the news is packaged, the amount of exposure,
the placement (front page or buried within, lead story or last), the
tone of presentation (sympathetic or slighting), the headlines and photographs,
and, in the case of broadcast media, the accompanying visual and auditory
effects.

Newscasters use themselves as auxiliary
embellishments. They cultivate a smooth delivery and try to convey an
impression of detachment that places them above the rough and tumble
of their subject matter. Television commentators and newspaper editorialists
and columnists affect a knowing tone designed to foster credibility
and an aura of certitude, or what might be called “authoritative ignorance,”
as expressed in remarks like “How will this situation end? Only time
will tell.” Or, “No one can say for sure.” Trite truisms are palmed
off as penetrating truths. Newscasters learn to fashion sentences like
“Unless the strike is settled soon, the two sides will be in for a long
and bitter struggle.” And “The space launching will take place as scheduled
if no unexpected problems arise.” And “Unless Congress acts soon, this
bill is not likely to go anywhere.” Stuff Just Happens

Many things are reported in the news
but few are explained. Little is said about how the social order is
organized and for what purposes. Instead we are left to see the world
as do mainstream pundits, as a scatter of events and personalities propelled
by happenstance, circumstance, confused intentions, bungled operations,
and individual ambition — rarely by powerful class interests. Passive
voice and impersonal subject are essential rhetorical constructs for
this mode of evasion. So we read or hear that “fighting broke out in
the region,” or “many people were killed in the disturbances,” or "famine
is on the increase.” Recessions apparently just happen like some natural
phenomenon ("our economy is in a slump"), having little to do with the
constant war of capital against labor and the contradictions between
productive power and earning power.

If we are to believe the media, stuff
just happens. Consider “globalization,” a pet label that the press presents
as a natural and inevitable development. In fact, globalization is a
deliberate contrivance of multinational interests to undermine democratic
sovereignty throughout the world. International “free trade” agreements
set up international trade councils that are elected by no one, are
accountable to no one, operate in secrecy without conflict of interest
restrictions, and with the power to overrule just about all labor, consumer,
and environmental laws, and all public services and regulations in all
signatory nations. What we actually are experiencing with GATT, NAFTA,
FTAA, GATS, and the WTO is deglobalization, an ever greater concentration
of politico-economic power in the hands of an international investor
class, a global coup d'etat that divests the peoples of the world of
any trace of protective democratic input.

In keeping with the liberal paradigm,
the media never asks why things happen the way they do. Social problems
are rarely associated with the politico-economic forces that create
them. So we are taught to truncate our own critical thinking. Imagine
if we attempted something different. Suppose we report, as is seldom
reported, that the harshly exploitative labor conditions existing in
so many countries generally has the backing of their respective military
forces. Suppose further that we cross another line and note that these
rightwing military forces are fully supported by the U.S. national security
state. Then suppose we cross that most serious line of all and instead
of just deploring this fact we also ask why successive U.S. administrations
have involved themselves in such unsavory pursuits throughout the world.
Suppose we conclude that the whole phenomenon is consistent with a dedication
to making the world safe for free-market corporate capitalism, as measured
by the kinds of countries that are helped and the kinds that are attacked.
Such an analysis almost certainly would not be printed anywhere except
in a few select radical publications. We crossed too many lines. Because
we tried to explain the particular situation (bad labor conditions)
in terms of a larger set of social relations (corporate class power),
our presentation would be rejected out of hand as “Marxist” — which
indeed it is, as is much of reality itself.

In sum, the news media’s daily performance
under what is called “democratic capitalism” is not a failure but a
skillfully evasive success. We often hear that the press “got it wrong”
or “dropped the ball” on this or that story. In fact, the media do their
job remarkably well. Media people have a trained incapacity for the
whole truth. Their job is not to inform but disinform, not to advance
democratic discourse but to dilute and mute it. Their task is to give
every appearance of being conscientiously concerned about events of
the day, saying so much while meaning so little, offering so many calories
with so few nutrients. When we understand this, we move from a liberal
complaint about the press's sloppy performance to a radical analysis
of how the media maintain the dominant paradigm with much craft and
craftiness.